The defendant is charged [in count __]
with criminal mischief in the third degree. The statute defining this offense
reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of criminal
mischief in the third degree when, having no reasonable ground to believe that
such person has a right to do so, such person (intentionally / recklessly) <insert
as appropriate:>

damages tangible
property of another.

tampers with
tangible property of another and thereby causes such property to be placed in
danger of damage.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Damaged or tampered
with propertyThe first element is that the
defendant <insert as appropriate:>

damaged tangible
property of another.

tampered with
tangible property of another and thereby placed the property in danger of
damage.

"Tangible" means that the property is
something that can be felt and seen. To "damage" means to harm the property.
To "tamper with" means to physically interfere with.

[<Insert if applicable:> This
"other person" need not have had a complete, absolute, or exclusive right to the
property. It is enough if (he/she) had a right to possess it or shared some
such right with someone else.]

Element 2 - Intentionally /
RecklesslyThe second element is that the
defendant acted (intentionally / recklessly)1
in damaging or tampering with the property. <Insert as appropriate:>

A person acts "intentionally"
with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such
result. <See
Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

A person acts "recklessly"
with respect to a result or circumstances when (he/she) is aware of and
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result
will occur or that such circumstances exist. <See
Recklessness, Instruction 2.3-4.>

Element 3 - No rightThe third element is that the
defendant had no reasonable ground to believe that (he/she) had a right to
damage or tamper with the property. A "reasonable ground to believe" means that
a reasonable person in the defendant's situation, viewing the circumstances from
the defendant's point of view, would have shared that belief.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant (damaged property / tampered
with property causing a risk that it would be damaged), 2) (he/she) did so
(intentionally / recklessly), and 3) (he/she) had no reasonable ground to
believe that (he/she) had a right to damage or tamper with the property.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
criminal mischief in the third degree, then you shall find the defendant
guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the
defendant not guilty.
_______________________________________________________

1
If both intentional and reckless are charged in the alternative, instruct the
jury that it must be unanimous as to which of the alternatives applies.